Evil DIMwit wrote:....
Then you leave the accuser/accused starting position non-neutral, but undesignated in starting positions. That way, the greens are evenly divided and the pinks are divided separately.
Did you do that correctly? I'm not sure what you mean by having them coded as a pooled starting position but then having them coded as neutral.
EDIT: please forgive my typing this morning..
Well (unless I'm sorely mistaken), what happens is that being in a Starting Position overrides the starting neutral value, but only if the starting position is assigned. The engine looks at the starting positions first and divides them equally among the players; it doesn't look at coded neutral values until it's done with SPs.
So, for example, say you wanted to change the Egypt: Lower map around so that each player gets an equal portion of the 5 capital territories, but the rest of the map is randomly assigned as usual. You'd code the capitals as neutral in their territory descriptions, but then set them all to be a pool of starting positions.
In a 2-player game, that's 2 capitals for each player with 1 left over (the 'neutral player' isn't assigned anything at this point); in a 3-player game that's 1 for each player and 2 left over. Say in a 3-player Egypt: Lower game, A-bt, Kha, and Ament are each given to one player. Khaset and Aneb-Hetch are left over so they get pooled in with the regular territries. However, because they're coded to have a neutral value, they're immediately set to neutral. The game begins with each player having one of the five capital territories, and the two left-over capitals starting as neutral.
I believe this mechanism is in use in Third Crusade right now, and it's kind of integral to the proposed XML scheme of Good Morning Woodboro.